1. Dirt was directed by Bill Benenson and Gene Rosow in 2009. 2. The film Dirt was unlike many of the films we have viewed in class. Dirt argued for better sustainability practices toward soil. It’s message was conveyed through cross cultural pathways and offered many potential solutions and methods to preserving soil. It gave value to soil by denoting its abundance of nutrients, complexity and the fact that it was created millions and millions of years before us. The latter point seems to convey that soil, itself, is bigger than us as mankind and our ability to continue on as a species. 3. Dirt drew out several sustainability problems that often times do not receive a lot of attention: India’s farming crisis: The conditions for farming in India are currently as worse as they have ever been due to the reliance on monoculture and GMO’s. Many Indian farmers wind up killing themselves by drinking the “pesticide they can no longer afford to buy.” Many people are forced to move into slums outside cities, in search of jobs that don’t exist.
Global issues not often considered environmental issues: There is still a disconnect between many issues in the world and how the environment is affecting the issue. The photographers in the film made this case as they showed photographs of several world tragedies inclusive of starvation, famine and disease. The starvation and famine are often caused by other things like climate change and poor crop rotation, while disease could be caused by poor waste management.
No connection between environment and well being:There is a definite disconnect between the environment being a natural source of well being for people. The inmates that worked outside were much happier and beneficial in society. If this connection were made more often, would it affect crime rates and depression?
How we view “dirt”: I think that the general feelings toward the word “dirt” are implicative of a problem. Often times we associate dirt and being outdoors to be gross. We try to disconnect ourselves from that “dirty” feeling by using products to cleanse ourselves and our homes. In reality, being in dirt is probably much more beneficial than any shampoo or soap. The bacteria, minerals and vitamins held in dirt are probably much better for us to be exposed to health wise than say laurel sulfates.
Education: In public school education, very little attention is given to this topic of dirt and soil mechanics. If more education was directed that way, then in respective careers and disciplines later on, students will have a new respect for soil even if they aren't a farmer. An example of this would be a civil engineer given the choice between building on an existing site versus clear cutting a small forest to build, and picking the existing site instead because of an ingrained knowledge of dirt's importance.
4.The entire first 45 minutes of the film compelled me because I wasn’t used to an environmental movie being so positive and upbeat. It made me more passionate about dirt’s preservation. This really worked because in most environmentalist films, the plot line is very “doom and gloom” which honestly shuts many viewers out because of the amount of helplessness they feel over the presented issues. 5. I was less compelled by portions of the film that explained the “spiritual” connections between humans and dirt. I don’t think that they benefitted the movie environmentally or informationally. I also felt that the beginning part (although upbeat and helpful) was incredibly drawn out. You can only say in so many ways how we need fertile soil and how beneficial it is, and then the sharp segway into farmer suicides in India really gave the movie a serious twist I didn’t forsee. 6. This film addresses an interesting demographic and I will explain why. First, it’s very light compared to most environmental films. The cartoon images and the tone of the movie would be suitable for a younger audience. However, this information I think it pertinent to everyone and I wish this film were slightly more accessible to older audiences. A similar film made by National Geographic would likely fulfill those structural needs and help to bridge the generation gap. 7. This film needed a little bit more technical science and less social science to have made it more educational environmentally. Although the film did a great job explaining the connections between people and dirt, it did little to explain the microbiological technical side of dirt. As an engineer, I would have liked to see a little more information in that respect, although the film was very educational regardless. 8. The film had many points of intervention listed throughout. Composting waste is a great way to create fertile soil from waste. Training inmates on how to garden can give them a job after they get out and cheer them up. Community gardens are a great way to bring communities together and keep city living healthy. Many of these suggestions in the film were very "grassroots" in nature, which was the vibe I got from the entire film. This worked well for this film as far as points of intervention because I do feel like its an individual responsibility to take care of this portion of our ecosystem and understand how to maintain it. This generates knowledge that we as a society have begun to lose, our ability to plant and grow our own food without chemicals. 9. After watching Dirt! I became really interested in Vandana Shiva, the Indian activist who played a pretty significant role in the film. I found out that she participated in a ecological movement in the 70s where they literally hugged trees to prevent them from being cut down. She is an expert in biodiversity and she is really against genetic engineering initiatives, which you could infer from the film as well. Apart from that Vandana is a supporter of Gandhi's non violent ways. (Martinez) Vandana successfully organizes training sessions to help Indian farmers learn how to save seeds and keep their livelihood. She calls her course "Soil not Oil" and interns from abroad also participate. (Shiva)
2. The film Dirt was unlike many of the films we have viewed in class. Dirt argued for better sustainability practices toward soil. It’s message was conveyed through cross cultural pathways and offered many potential solutions and methods to preserving soil. It gave value to soil by denoting its abundance of nutrients, complexity and the fact that it was created millions and millions of years before us. The latter point seems to convey that soil, itself, is bigger than us as mankind and our ability to continue on as a species.
3. Dirt drew out several sustainability problems that often times do not receive a lot of attention:
India’s farming crisis: The conditions for farming in India are currently as worse as they have ever been due to the reliance on monoculture and GMO’s. Many Indian farmers wind up killing themselves by drinking the “pesticide they can no longer afford to buy.” Many people are forced to move into slums outside cities, in search of jobs that don’t exist.
4.The entire first 45 minutes of the film compelled me because I wasn’t used to an environmental movie being so positive and upbeat. It made me more passionate about dirt’s preservation. This really worked because in most environmentalist films, the plot line is very “doom and gloom” which honestly shuts many viewers out because of the amount of helplessness they feel over the presented issues.
5. I was less compelled by portions of the film that explained the “spiritual” connections between humans and dirt. I don’t think that they benefitted the movie environmentally or informationally. I also felt that the beginning part (although upbeat and helpful) was incredibly drawn out. You can only say in so many ways how we need fertile soil and how beneficial it is, and then the sharp segway into farmer suicides in India really gave the movie a serious twist I didn’t forsee.
6. This film addresses an interesting demographic and I will explain why. First, it’s very light compared to most environmental films. The cartoon images and the tone of the movie would be suitable for a younger audience. However, this information I think it pertinent to everyone and I wish this film were slightly more accessible to older audiences. A similar film made by National Geographic would likely fulfill those structural needs and help to bridge the generation gap.
7. This film needed a little bit more technical science and less social science to have made it more educational environmentally. Although the film did a great job explaining the connections between people and dirt, it did little to explain the microbiological technical side of dirt. As an engineer, I would have liked to see a little more information in that respect, although the film was very educational regardless.
8. The film had many points of intervention listed throughout. Composting waste is a great way to create fertile soil from waste. Training inmates on how to garden can give them a job after they get out and cheer them up. Community gardens are a great way to bring communities together and keep city living healthy. Many of these suggestions in the film were very "grassroots" in nature, which was the vibe I got from the entire film. This worked well for this film as far as points of intervention because I do feel like its an individual responsibility to take care of this portion of our ecosystem and understand how to maintain it. This generates knowledge that we as a society have begun to lose, our ability to plant and grow our own food without chemicals.
9. After watching Dirt! I became really interested in Vandana Shiva, the Indian activist who played a pretty significant role in the film. I found out that she participated in a ecological movement in the 70s where they literally hugged trees to prevent them from being cut down. She is an expert in biodiversity and she is really against genetic engineering initiatives, which you could infer from the film as well. Apart from that Vandana is a supporter of Gandhi's non violent ways. (Martinez) Vandana successfully organizes training sessions to help Indian farmers learn how to save seeds and keep their livelihood. She calls her course "Soil not Oil" and interns from abroad also participate. (Shiva)
References:
Martinez, David. "David Martínez « Biology & Geology 4 ESO." Biology & Geology 4 ESO. 5 Mar. 2010. Web. 05 Nov. 2010. <http://bio4esobil2009.wordpress.com/author/davidmart/>.
Shiva, Vandana. "About Navdanya | Vandana Shiva – Navdanya International." Reconnecting Farmers, Society and the Earth | Vandana Shiva – Navdanya International. Web. 05 Nov. 2010. <http://www.vandanashiva.org/?cat=4>.